No Muslim Refugees (law, legal, assess)

[Dustyroad70]

Originally Posted by John7777

I can't believe all the people on these message boards who don't have a basic understanding of federal constitutional law.

The federal government decides who is admitted to the United States as a refugee. And once admitted, refugees have a right to travel and live wherever they want in the USA. No state governor can decide otherwise. About all a state can do is to perhaps refuse to expend some state resources to make life easier for the refugees. For example, the state of Kansas would probably be under no obligation to set up a "Refugee Welcome Center." But make no mistake about it. If they wanted to, every single refugee could decide to relocate to Kansas, and the Kansas governor couldn't do much about it, legally.

The above comment is foolish and grandiose. It is a straw man argument. Just because the federal government has the authority to do a thing, does not make it wise or good. It is good that the Kansas governor is doing all he can to hinder this diabolical action. If it is true, what I have read and heard, that the UN is the one deciding who and how many come here and they are the ones doing the screening, this just stinks to high heaven. I also have read that Christians are being pushed aside and Muslim populations are being given priority to come here.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by chronic65

The above comment is foolish and grandiose. It is a straw man argument. Just because the federal government has the authority to do a thing, does not make it wise or good. It is good that the Kansas governor is doing all he can to hinder this diabolical action. If it is true, what I have read and heard, that the UN is the one deciding who and how many come here and they are the ones doing the screening, this just stinks to high heaven. I also have read that Christians are being pushed aside and Muslim populations are being given priority to come here.

You might want to check and then double check some of your sources for half-truths to make it seem as bad as possible. You *really* have to take some sources with a grain of salt.

[AnywhereElse]

UN also decides when we are allowed to take action and what that should be on an international level and we have defied them more than once so that defense really doesn't fly.

Also, federal funding is still coming from the taxpayer's pocket and we'll have to match funds on welfare programs and our schools are already not doing very well unless you live in the wealthier areas of the state.

[John7777]

Originally Posted by chronic65

The above comment is foolish and grandiose. It is a straw man argument. Just because the federal government has the authority to do a thing, does not make it wise or good. It is good that the Kansas governor is doing all he can to hinder this diabolical action. If it is true, what I have read and heard, that the UN is the one deciding who and how many come here and they are the ones doing the screening, this just stinks to high heaven. I also have read that Christians are being pushed aside and Muslim populations are being given priority to come here.

Foolish and grandiose? I was just trying to explain the law as I understand it.

Of course, it might not be such a good idea to admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the middle east. But that decision is not a decision that can be made by state governors. People who want to change the law should write to their congressmen. It's a federal issue.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by John7777

I can't believe all the people on these message boards who don't have a basic understanding of federal constitutional law.

The federal government decides who is admitted to the United States as a refugee. And once admitted, refugees have a right to travel and live wherever they want in the USA. No state governor can decide otherwise. About all a state can do is to perhaps refuse to expend some state resources to make life easier for the refugees. For example, the state of Kansas would probably be under no obligation to set up a "Refugee Welcome Center." But make no mistake about it. If they wanted to, every single refugee could decide to relocate to Kansas, and the Kansas governor couldn't do much about it, legally.

True to some extent and certainly on paper.

Reality however when a state is not welcoming and trying to help....how many individuals without resources or a car etc etc. going to just pick up and move to an area completely on their own?

I fully agree that a good part of it is merely political grandstanding.

P.S. Ever heard of sanctuary cities? States, cities etc. can work around things sometimes.....just saying.

[John7777]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

True to some extent and certainly on paper.

Reality however when a state is not welcoming and trying to help....how many individuals without resources or a car etc etc. going to just pick up and move to an area completely on their own?

I fully agree that a good part of it is merely political grandstanding.

P.S. Ever heard of sanctuary cities? States, cities etc. can work around things sometimes.....just saying.

Of course it's political grandstanding. As for the difficulties any refugee might face? Sure. Maybe they don't know the language. Maybe they don't have much money. Maybe they'll have difficulty finding a job. So as a practical matter, they'll likely need help. I suppose it'll be a real mess for a lot of people.

[Count David]

How do Syrian refugees get into the U.S.? - CNNPolitics.com

From the article:

Resettlement locations are determined based on a number of factors, including family ties, the size of the local immigrant community and the ability of local resettlement agencies to accommodate new cases.

Officials also take into account the unemployment rate of the area to ensure refugees are able to find work and begin supporting themselves.

Does Kansas check all of these boxes?

[Mattks]

Originally Posted by David Aguilar

How do Syrian refugees get into the U.S.? - CNNPolitics.com

From the article:

Does Kansas check all of these boxes?

Do they look at the whole state or at cities? I'm guessing Kansas City (both KS and MO side) and Wichita would meet their requirements.

After some thought, I don't oppose settlement (in limited numbers) in either of those places, but the average Kansas town/city probably wouldn't meet the requirements and wouldn't be a good location.

[Dustyroad70]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

You might want to check and then double check some of your sources for half-truths to make it seem as bad as possible. You *really* have to take some sources with a grain of salt.

If I don't know what you are quibbling with, I won't know what to check. I never said I was quoting the bible! I didn't say I believe everything I read or hear. Maybe you should work on becoming the logicguy!

[Gunluvver2]

Kansas ain't San Francisco.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDKlcSZEZDg